Market Garden doomed from the start or could it of worked!

[Higgins86]

Ok DP historians I pose the question could market garden have worked or was it always doomed to fail?
So key points.

1. The Germans had an idea that we were going to attack having intercepted key intelligence and a noted that there was constant stream of reinforcements to the right wing of the British Second Army.
2. The mis-guided believe that only young boys and old men were defending Holland but Walter Model newly appointed had actually bolstered army group B had was later supported by the 9th SS and the 10th ss Panzer Divison.
3. Communication breakdown with the allied radio's
4. Germans recovered a copy of the Market-Garden plan from the corpse of an American officer who should not have been carrying it into combat
5. 82nd Airborne Division were dropped several kilometres from the Nijmegen Bridge which resulted in a very long delay in capturing the bridge
6 XXX Corps were critised as being slow ( although under heavy fire).



Eisenhower stated "The attack began well and unquestionably would have been successful except for the intervention of bad weather.


These are just some of the reasons why the operation failed and I welcome more input! Personally I think the Operation was always going to fail because so much had to go right in order for it to succeed. I also think that allied arrogance after D-day especially that of Montys meant that we greatly under estimated how much fight the Germans had left and that not only would they kick us out of Holland but they would also give the 101st a good run for their money in the Bulge.

"I think we may be going a bridge too far"

 

[gunner]

Ok DP historians I pose the question could market garden have worked or was it always doomed to fail?
So key points.

1. The Germans had an idea that we were going to attack having intercepted key intelligence and a noted that there was constant stream of reinforcements to the right wing of the British Second Army.
2. The mis-guided believe that only young boys and old men were defending Holland but Walter Model newly appointed had actually bolstered army group B had was later supported by the 9th SS and the 10th ss Panzer Divison.
3. Communication breakdown with the allied radio's
4. Germans recovered a copy of the Market-Garden plan from the corpse of an American officer who should not have been carrying it into combat
5. 82nd Airborne Division were dropped several kilometres from the Nijmegen Bridge which resulted in a very long delay in capturing the bridge
6 XXX Corps were critised as being slow ( although under heavy fire).



Eisenhower stated "The attack began well and unquestionably would have been successful except for the intervention of bad weather.



These are just some of the reasons why the operation failed and I welcome more input! Personally I think the Operation was always going to fail because so much had to go right in order for it to succeed. I also think that allied arrogance after D-day especially that of Montys meant that we greatly under estimated how much fight the Germans had left and that not only would they kick us out of Holland but they would also give the 101st a good run for their money in the Bulge.

"I think we may be going a bridge too far"

I have a few general points, to add. The use of 'Airborne troops' is a double edged sword. Their initial effectiveness can be overwhelming if they encounter a lightly armed and poorly fortified enemy. If these factors are not the case (as was the case to a large extent in Market Garden) their effectiveness is greatly diminished. I cant stress the point enough of the role of a Para, as being that of 'shock troops' as opposed to say a mechanized Infantry battalion.

The above becomes less of a worry if they can call upon reinforcements at the decisive point in a battle, that point being once they establish their force is not sufficient to overpower the enemy. For me, your point on the weather etc is the same for almost all battle preparation and takes on less importance. IIRC, if a Parachute battalion has not won its objective within the first 48hrs their chance of success, without the above mentioned reinforcements, is greatly diminished. These asssertions are made on the basis of the Para's being used in such a role. Where Para's are used in conventioanl infantry tactics (say the Falklands) i would back their becoming triumphant for ever and a day, as proved

Remember the fundamental battle order is 'to win the fire fight'. That can only be achieved with superior weaponry-numbers-or tactics.

Paul

 

[Higgins86]

I have a few general points, to add. The use of 'Airborne troops' is a double edged sword. Their initial effectiveness can be overwhelming if they encounter a lightly armed and poorly fortified enemy. If these factors are not the case (as was the case to a large extent in Market Garden) their effectiveness is greatly diminished. I cant stress the point enough of the role of a Para, as being that of 'shock troops' as opposed to say a mechanized Infantry battalion.

The above becomes less of a worry if they can call upon reinforcements at the decisive point in a battle, that point being once they establish their force is not sufficient to overpower the enemy. For me, your point on the weather etc is the same for almost all battle preparation and takes on less importance. IIRC, if a Parachute battalion has not won its objective within the first 48hrs their chance of success, without the above mentioned reinforcements, is greatly diminished. These asssertions are made on the basis of the Para's being used in such a role. Where Para's are used in conventioanl infantry tactics (say the Falklands) i would back their becoming triumphant for ever and a day, as proved

Remember the fundamental battle order is 'to win the fire fight'. That can only be achieved with superior weaponry-numbers-or tactics.

Paul

so who's failure was this in your opinion, would you lay the blame at Monty and co?

 

[gunner]

so who's failure was this in your opinion, would you lay the blame at Monty and co?

I feel you have to place blame with those at the top. To my knowledge their were no glaringly obvious mistakes made by lower ranking officers. The primary reason was probably the underestimating of the force that lay in wait. And secondly, the lack of being able to support once the plans went horribly wrong. Logistics would have been an absolute nightmare as I'm sure you can imagine. Turning a relatively immobile force (airborne brigades) into a fast moving mobile force with the ability to retreat was near on impossible. Market Garden was probably the death nail in commanders using troops in this way, if they could avoid it. I know the Americans have used the tactic very sparingly since, and only on a limited scale, and when the odds are stacked to suggest a non-existent enemy at or near the drop zone. That said, the aura and mystique of airborne ability lives on something i feel sets the airborne troop apart from the conventional infantry.

Heres a good read

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_arnhem.html#falters

Paul

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Ok DP historians I pose the question could market garden have worked or was it always doomed to fail?
So key points.

1. The Germans had an idea that we were going to attack having intercepted key intelligence and a noted that there was constant stream of reinforcements to the right wing of the British Second Army.
2. The mis-guided believe that only young boys and old men were defending Holland but Walter Model newly appointed had actually bolstered army group B had was later supported by the 9th SS and the 10th ss Panzer Divison.
3. Communication breakdown with the allied radio's
4. Germans recovered a copy of the Market-Garden plan from the corpse of an American officer who should not have been carrying it into combat
5. 82nd Airborne Division were dropped several kilometres from the Nijmegen Bridge which resulted in a very long delay in capturing the bridge
6 XXX Corps were critised as being slow ( although under heavy fire).



Eisenhower stated "The attack began well and unquestionably would have been successful except for the intervention of bad weather.


These are just some of the reasons why the operation failed and I welcome more input! Personally I think the Operation was always going to fail because so much had to go right in order for it to succeed. I also think that allied arrogance after D-day especially that of Montys meant that we greatly under estimated how much fight the Germans had left and that not only would they kick us out of Holland but they would also give the 101st a good run for their money in the Bulge.

"I think we may be going a bridge too far"

The movie, although long, was excellent and is one of my favorite WWII movies.
I think that Market Garden was doomed for failure. It was in an area infested with German soldiers and elite SS Panzer divisions. The reason why German paratroops succeeded so much in the Blitzkrieg (one major aspect of the early German conquests in WWII that many don't know of is the use of the German paratroopers. They were vital to the plans, and they captured almost all of the ports, foritifcations, and strategic points. Fort Eben Emael comes to mind. The most powerful fortress in WWII, and one that commanded several strategic points and roads, less than 100 German soldiers in gliders landed on it, trapped the fort's 750 defenders, and blew up the big guns, paving the way for the Panzers) is that they were able to strike in at unexpected, lightly defended places, and at areas close to support from main and heavy infantry units.
Market Garden was a spectacular failure